Philosophy, like all other social sciences, carries enormous vested interests on its shoulders. For instance, it makes a world of difference whether one endorses the ideas of Plato (427-347 BC) or those of Aristotle (384-322 BC).

In the case of Socrates, there is a large difference between the defenders and the critics of the Socratic method. There are good arguments on both sides of the fence, but the debate goes deeper than it seems at first sight.

Plato remarked in “Apology” that Socrates cared more for his soul than for wealth or reputation, as though each of us had to choose in life between the truth and earthly success.

I consider Plato’s statement as an indicator of the enormous stakes that go along with philosophy, and in particular, with the Socratic method.

On the one hand, we can take the Socratic method literally as presented by Plato and practise it in the hope of arriving at the truth by asking relentless questions. If we support this line of thought, we will regard the Socratic method as perennially beneficial.

On the other hand, we can point to the deficiencies of the Socratic method; for instance, the fact that it lacks a structured, waterproof logic that delivers unassailable conclusions. If we support this line of thought, we will always apply the Socratic method in conjunction with Aristotelian logic to ensure that the conclusions are sound.

Two interpretations

I respect the supporters of a literal application of the method practised by Socrates, but I fall in the second group. I favour a nuanced application of the Socratic method and always after having used Aristotelian logic to correct its vagaries.

Which of the two interpretations is correct? History records a crushing victory of the supporters of a literal line of thought. If we adjudicate the debate by the weight of the publications on each side, there would be nothing for me left to say.

I would have to concede the case and let it go. I would have to acknowledge that the supporters of the literal application are in the majority and that they have won the debate hands down.

Luckily, that’s not how crucial philosophical differences are adjudicated. Who is the final arbiter? Who has the authority to settle those differences? The final arbiter is reality, not the size of the publications that support any given point of view.

Socrates may have cared more for his soul than for wealth, fame and any other earthly amenity, but this doesn’t mean that his conclusions are right.

I agree with categorising Socrates as a great idealist, but I must point out that, in history, idealists have been frequently proven wrong. Socrates does not constitute an exception in this respect because many conclusions from his debates are wrong.

I will just mention two examples to illustrate this point.

First, in Plato’s “Meno,” Socrates claims that human beings learn by remembering. He claims to have proven so by asking a boy questions that help him solve an arithmetical problem.

Second, in “Crito,” Socrates claims that it is preferable for him to commit suicide than to escape Athens because, if he did not go ahead with his suicide, he would undermine the laws of Athens and weaken the confidence in its justice system.

Wrong conclusions

I regard Socrates’ conclusions in these two cases as wrong, even if he had arrived at those conclusions by asking rhetorical questions and practising his method in a shortened form.

If Socrates had used syllogistic logic, he would have figured out that humans do not learn by remembering and that suicide, was rather foolish in his particular case, considering that Crito, his friend, could have easily facilitated his evasion from jail.

In the years that followed Socrates’ death, few philosophers dared to contest his thesis that humans learn by remembering. Plato himself determinedly retook this thesis and developed it into even bigger nonsense.

Concerning the suicide, Socrates failed to understand that unjust judicial decisions, such as his death sentence, should not be accepted without criticism. It was foolish of him to decline Crito’s offer to help him escape from jail and go into exile.

After the death of Alexander the Great, Aristotle, due to his Macedonian origin, faced the possibility of prosecution. He did not wait for the threat to materialise and left Athens right away. He entrusted his school to a friend and went into exile. I regard his decision as wiser than Socrates’ suicide.

Despite my disagreement with the literal application of the Socratic method, I understand why many philosophers support it. I can equally understand why, in history, some philosophers have kept claiming, against all evidence, that humans learn by remembering.

There are significant vested interests in doing so, that is, in supporting a literal application of the Socratic method. People who have built their careers by maintaining those positions, are naturally reluctant to let them go. They are naturally suspicious of any interpretation that weakens the branch upon which they are sitting.

I must point out that the two examples of Socrates’ incorrect conclusions are not isolated cases. In fact, it is rare for Socrates to arrive at an accurate conclusion by using his method. There is simply too much noise in his tangents.

Plato’s “Gorgias” provides another salient example. After a long conversation and argumentation, Socrates concludes that it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.

Aristotle would have categorised Socrates’ conclusion as a false dichotomy. The alternative to suffer wrong is not to inflict wrong on other people. The real alternative is to escape, avoid the damage, and build ourselves a better life somewhere else.

I just want to open the reader’s eyes to the fact that there are large issues hiding behind every little philosophical debate. It’s not surprising that, for hundreds of years, these debates have kept philosophers busy.

Whether we accept one conclusion or the other, it will affect how we make decisions, how we judge people, and how we set good deeds apart from crimes and misdemeanours. Let us keep an impartial mind when reading Socrates, so that we do not get carried away by the weight of his prestige.

If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”